Agenda item

The Local Review Body then considered the third request for a review. The Chairperson advised that the LRB would now be addressed by Ms Lucy Greene and reminded members that Ms Greene had not been involved in any way with the consideration or determination of the application under review and was present to provide factual information and guidance to the Body only.  Ms Greene would not be asked to express any view on the proposed application.

Ms Greene explained that the property which was the subject of the review was a single storey semi-detached house on a residential street. It was located on Morgan Road, Aberdeen, which is in the area to the south of Rosehill Drive and east of Anderson Drive. The proposal under review was for the building up of the hipped roof to form a straight gable and dormers on the front and rear of the house. The extension would be finished in slate to the roof, UPVC windows and rain water goods and render to the extended gable.

Ms Greene advised that there were no comments from consultees and no objections from neighbours.

Ms Greene indicated that the issues for consideration were the policies within the adopted Aberdeen Local Development Plan and the Supplementary Guidance contained within the Householder Development Guide. The area was zoned under the Residential Areas policy and the proposal is for an extension to a residential house, there are no tensions with policy in terms of the principle.

Ms Greene explained that Policy R1, refers directly to the Householder Supplementary Guidance, and states that proposals should be approved, only if they accord with the guidance. There are two sections of the Householder Developer guidance that were particularly relevant, those being:-

• Any Existing extensions, dormers or other alterations which were approved prior to the introduction of the supplementary guidance will not be considered by the planning authority to provide justification for a development proposal which would otherwise fail to comply with the guidance set out in the document. This guidance is intended to improve quality of design and effectively raise the design standards and ground rules against which proposals will be measured; and
• With respect to dormers, ‘the dormer extension should not appear to dominate the original roof space’.

Ms Greene intimated that detailed policy on dormer design was also contained within the Householder Supplementary Guidance, the dormer complies with this guidance in terms of its design, amount of glazing and relationship to the roof. The tension comes in the judgement as to whether it overwhelms the roof. This was a matter of judgement for members.

In relation to hipped roof extensions, Ms Greene advised that the guidance covers this type of extension and states ‘modifying only one half of a hipped roof is likely to result in the roof having an unbalanced appearance. The practice of extending a hipped roof on one half of a pair of semi-detached houses to terminate at a raised gable will not generally be accepted unless the other half of the building has already been altered in this way; or such a proposal would not, as a result of the existing streetscape and character of the buildings therein, result in any adverse impact on the character or visual amenity of the wider area’.

Ms Greene explained that this application was half of a pair of semi-detached houses, with the other house retaining a hipped roof. There would therefore be tensions with the Householder guidance.

Ms Greene indicated that there is a hipped roof extension at number 19 in the area, however this was approved in 2005, which pre-dated the current guidance.

It was noted that the submitted Notice of Review was found to be valid and submitted within the relevant timeframes.  The review statement challenged the grounds of refusal in the following terms:-

·        In general terms Morgan Road is characterised by a mix of single and two-storey semi-detached dwelling houses. The addition of dormers to create a second level of accommodation is a common feature along the

road;

• There exists on the opposite side of the road at No. 19 Morgan Drive an almost identical extension involving the straightening of a hipped gable and the erection of front and rear dormers to that proposed by our client at No. 24 Morgan Drive. Numerous other properties within the wider locale have also had similar alterations carried out.
• The examples referred to above, all of which were approved by the Council and considered acceptable in design terms in the recent past provide strong precedents in support of our client’s current proposal. They have become established and accepted in the street scene and do not impact adversely on character or amenity.
• There have been no objections to the planning application either from consultees or from third parties.

Ms Greene advised that the applicant referred to a number of properties which have been extended in a similar fashion in the wider area, however some of these were prior to 2000:-

• 19 Morgan Road – permission in 2005
• 9 Cairncry Crescent – 2004
• 12 Rosehill Drive, last permissions were 1988
• 24 Rosehill Drive – permission 1997
• 1 & 6 Hayfield Crescent – 1996 & 2006
• 16 Rosehill Crescent – 2009
• 74 and 86 Hilton Drive – 2009 & 1993

Ms Greene intimated that interpretation of this section of the guidance was a matter for the members of the Local Review Body, however, the point referred to by the applicant would allow planning officers to take into account a situation where there had already been quite a number of such alterations. The degree to which this would apply would be a matter of judgement on the merits of the individual case.

The report advised that the stated reason for refusal of planning permission was as follows:-

The proposed hip to gable extension and subsequent dormers relate to an existing residential use and are in compliance with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, however the proposal does not comply with Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) of ALDP and the associated ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance in that the proposal does not demonstrate due regards for the design and context of the streetscape, and as a result the proposed development would appear out of context and would impose a negative design on the surrounding area. On the basis of the above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it is considered that the proposal does not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and that there are no material planning considerations – including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan – that would warrant approval of the application.

At this point, the Local Review Body considered whether it had sufficient information before it to determine the review.  Members thereupon agreed that the review under consideration be determined without further procedure.

In coming to their decision, the Local Review Body had regard to the provisions of the Development Plan as required by Sections 25 and 37(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (as amended) which required that where, in making any determination under the planning acts, regard was to be had to the provisions of the development plan and that determination should be made in accordance with the plan, so far as material the application, unless material considerations indicated otherwise.

More specifically, the reasons on which the Local Review Body based this decision were as follows:-

The proposed hip to gable extension and subsequent dormers relate to an existing residential use and are in compliance with Policy H1 (Residential Areas) of the Aberdeen Local Development Plan 2012, however the proposal does not comply with Policy D1 (Architecture and Placemaking) of ALDP and the associated ‘Householder Development Guide’ Supplementary Guidance in that the proposal does not demonstrate due regards for the design and context of the streetscape, and as a result the proposed development would appear out of context and would impose a negative design on the surrounding area. On the basis of the above, and following on from the evaluation under policy and guidance, it is considered that the proposal does not accord with the provisions of the Development Plan and that there are no material planning considerations – including the Proposed Aberdeen Local Development Plan – that would warrant approval of the application.

- RAMSAY MILNE, Chairperson